Wouldn't it be a little more intuitive to use [] brackets for tags instead of <> brackets? After all, most forum tag systems use [].
wakabamark doesn't use tags... http://wakaba.c3.cx/docs/docs.html#WakabaMark
also, http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/kareha.pl/1099727823/16
>wakabamark doesn't use tags... http://wakaba.c3.cx/docs/docs.html#WakabaMark
'also', ''http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/kareha.pl/1099727823/16''
*whoops,
**my mistake
also, http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/kareha.pl/1099727823/16
** my
mistake
hmm
Partition for Wakamark to be excluded from any parts of an URL. See also: http://4-ch.net/anime/kareha.pl/1100247225/9-10
Done, in the development version.
Wakamarked text seems to have the ability to evase automated line breaks somehow: http://nub.wakachan.net/b/res/994.html#1054
Hmm, that's actually correct behaviour though. It's just that the person writing put all his text in a code block, which means line breaking is not done.
While we're making partitions, how about in-line links? Maybe something like|http://url The Text| for <a href="http://url">The Text</a>
I dunno. Besides the obvious potential for misuse ( |http://goat.cx/hello.jpg http://www.wakachan.org/mai/src/1102202739778.gif| ), I actually perfer external links to be just the URL. I find this more readable and easy to navigate.
More readable? Not when you're trying to link to something contextually... Please see post 31 of http://4-ch.net/politics/kareha.pl/1101592678/ (can't recall how to link to posts directly off-hand). That would have been a lot less sloppy if I could have linked to them in-line...
No, that's the point: An inline link provides no hint that you're about to leave the current site (and context). I like external links to be clearly visible as such, so I know that they are reference to material outside the current context. As a matter of fact, I dislike the entire pracitce of making pieces of flowing text links. Slashdot story summaries, for instance, are incredibly annoying to read because they are full of links, and there's no hint where each one goes, or what their significance is. I find it much clearer to first explain why you are making a link, and then providing the link itself.
Incidentially, you don't need to keep spaces around the URLs, WakabaMark is smart enough to understand to not include the parenthesis.
Meh. Applying some CSS (like having a dashed underline instead of a solid one) could show folks they're about to go off-site. In my "career" in web design, I've been taught to write with contextual links... ti comes natural to me. But whatever.
I wish you wouldn't make style decisions like that for us... Other people use Wakaba too, ya know. :P
> In my "career" in web design, I've been taught to write with contextual links
You can provide context by just writing next to the link what the link is good for, yknow?
Well, I always have the abuse potential argument to hide behind, don't I? Slashdot had to add their incredibly annoying [domain.com] postfixes for that very reason, which really destroys the whole point of the inline links.
And I really have reservations about many things being taught to web designers.
Can we please use something else than asterisks to make italics?
Many people have this habit stemming from IM and other online communication means to speak of themselves acting somehow in the third person with asterisks, like this:
*hates you*Alternative solution could be colons: :text in italics:
Well, if it gets them to stop doing that, I don't see a problem.
often emphasis /like this/ is used to indicate itallics.
...but I guess it's also used for things like /usr/. Nevermind.
I got this syntax from Markdown, which is based around semantic HTML, and that's how I think about this: *blah* does not mean "italics", it means "emphasis", that is, <em> in HTML. **blah** is "strong emphasis", or <strong>. It is then up to the browser and/or stylesheet to decide how to represent this. Traditionally italics and bold are used, but this is no requirement.
For instance, the Amber styles uses bold and blink. This is a bad example, since the Amber style is pretty much a joke. However, if you look closely, you can see that the Headline style uses italic for quotes, and non-italic for emphasis inside quotes.
>>18: signed
>>18
lol users are shit
I am still saying to drop the asterisks out of Wakamark and replace them by less used characters.
It should be fairly easy: The do_spans() function in wakautils.pl contains the regexps that parse it. Look for "[\*_] or similar (meaning "match either a * or a _").
And some people use : : for emoting in text. You can't account for the idiosyncracies of every user - at some point you just have to ask them to conform. * * is an old and accepted way to place emphasis in unformatted text, while : : is not.
I furthermore maintain that emoting has no place in written text other than instant messaging, which is emulating a face-to-face discussion. Books do not contain emoting, and neither do letters. There are far more elegant ways to communicate the same thing, and using emoting just makes you look childish.
> I furthermore maintain that emoting has no place in written text
That's funny, because italics or emphasized text is serving no other purpose than emoting does.
>>25: signed signed signed signed signed
How do you reckon that? I use emphasis for things like titles, and I use strong emphasis to highligh important passages. I do also sometimes use emphasis to convey a tone of voice, which is related to emoting but not the same, and also does not break up the flow of the text like emoting does.
That is your personal opinion and preference. What emoting, AA art, WAKAmark and all other forms of expression above simple text do is enrich the act of communication, that's it. If you think that one form of that is childish, so be it. I think it's objectively best to let all forms co-exist as much as possible.
I already used * * to signify emphasis, as did many others, long before WakabaMark, and its use in WakabaMark reflects this tradition. So we have a conflict between the two, and it is not like I am going to suddenly side with the usage that I find annoying over the one I find intuitive.
And furthermore, emoting isn't suddenly made impossible by this. Hell, just see the emphasized text as signifying emoting.